Post navigation

Is declaring War part of a President´s Job Description?

“It’s become an unspoken addendum to the job description: become President of the United States. Declare war – somewhere, somehow.”

That is what RT news recent analysis thrown to the questioning table, reminding us of the past Presidents of The United States and their war agendas. This is a quick excerpt from RT report. You can watch the original video here.

80´s – For President Ronald Reagan in 1986, it was a familiar attack on a familiar enemy – Moammar Ghadafi.He announced that the US would take action on April 14, 1986.

90´s- Apparently, so did Saddam Hussein, according to President George H.W. Bush in his televised announcement on January 16, 1991, it was in response to a conflict that had started in August, when “the dictator of Iraq invaded it’s small and helpless neighbor.”

For his successor, President Bill Clinton – the target was Slobodan Milosevic, President of Serbia and Yugoslavia.

2000´s- President George W. Bush said in March 2003 it was weapons of mass destruction that threatened the world, and invaded Iraq in what was supposed to be a quick and limited campaign.

Many American’s thought it would end there, especially after US President Barack Obama’s clear anti-war stance in his campaign. He has spent most of his presidency trying to end the wars started by his predecessor.

Until now.

Obama spoke out a day after the UN Security Council passed a resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. He said it was a call end to the violence in Libya.

There are at least two glaring similarities to point out, when it comes to the use of force by US presidents: none were in response to a military attack, or even threat of an attack on US soil and none have been formally declared wars.

If you have been following the news, you would know something about the uprising in Lybia. Same old formula:

People unhappy with Dictator→ revolt→ U.S intervention with back up of International governments = endless war that keep the war business going → problem not solved→what happened to the people?

The question remains, Why Lybia? Why suddenly is decided that Gadaffi needs to step down or else? Oh! that is right! Is what the people wants, that is why they are out there protesting! Well I have not seen any single decent coverage of civilians protesting in the streets. We saw it on Egypt. But on Lybia? just random pictures of tanks and rebels with guns…

The wounded people who you see now on TV are a result of the bombing of U.S and allies trying to enforce peace?

And then suddenly pieces start to come into place: Two days ago RT News shows a video of a conversation between the Chief of U.S Pentagon Robert Gates and General Petraeus in Afghanistan in early March. They did not know they were being mic’ed. It goes like this…

PETRAUS: “Flying a little bigger plane than normal. Are you going to launch some attacks on Lybia or something?”

Why on earth the international community would send a fleet to Libya to support one faction in an ordinary civil war? Is it so Sarkozy can score political points for being a tough guy ahead of the presidential election? Is it so Berlusconi can draw media attention away from his sex scandal? Is it so Obama can keep up with the tradition that each US president start a war? Judging from how slow the action is unfolding there, the people in charge don’t seem to have the answer themselves.

This is not a Power to the People story. This is a sad same old story. To prove it, I would like to share with you a classic: The last speech that Chaplin gives in his great movie “The Great Dictator”(in English with Spanish Subtitles)